Not in my Book, who cares if he didn't take it up the arse, he allowed himself to be photographed by a homo photographer for a gay magazine so a bunch of homos could wank themselves over him. Sounds Gay to me.

After reading the first five chapters of Arnold's book, it is hard to believe him and Joe Weider didn't have an "arrangement " when he first came to the states with Joe footing the bill. Something about that relationship just doesn't sit well.....

Not in my Book, who cares if he didn't take it up the arse, he allowed himself to be photographed by a homo photographer for a gay magazine so a bunch of homos could wank themselves over him. Sounds Gay to me.

Yes, with any names and mention of it in print, I know of the book written by the gym owner where he did the Arnold story but changed Arnold name but what Else? Have you spoken to anyone who claims to have paid him personally?

"When Arnold moved to England [around the time of his first Mr. Universe title in 1967], John Dixey, a British businessman and well-known aficionado of muscle boys, was very, very kind to Arnold. Arnold stayed in touch with Dixey for two years.' Asked about the relationship some years ago, Dixey confirmed that Arnold visited him in his house in Kent, and that he took Arnold sightseeing to the Tower of London, St Paul's Cathedral, and to the theatre (sounds romantic). He also met Arnold's father and his brother. You have to understand, before Arnold came on the scene, it was common currency that bodybuilders were less than macho - it was absolutely given and accepted that they supported themselves by catering to the tastes of wealthy gay men. Another of Schwarzenegger's early benefactors, was Paco Arce Gomez, a Spanish millionaire and renowned gay playboy.

sYes, with any names and mention of it in print, I know of the book written by the gym owner where he did the Arnold story but changed Arnold name but what Else? Have you spoken to anyone who claims to have paid him personally?

What possible purpose would this serve? If you don't want to believe it (as with Hurricane Beef) nothing I say is going to convince you. If you are inclined to believe it, you probably do not need any more convincing. Like E-Kul I don't see much difference between posing nude for a gay photographer for spreads sold to gay audiences and "other activities" that are not necessarily captured on film. We've had this same debate years ago over musclegallery.com and more recently over Steve Namat's video jerk sessions. I suspect HB doens't think those are gay either.

For what it's worth E-Kul has given some names... but is that of any use to you?

What possible purpose would this serve? If you don't want to believe it (as with Hurricane Beef) nothing I say is going to convince you. If you are inclined to believe it, you probably do not need any more convincing. Like E-Kul I don't see much difference between posing nude for a gay photographer for spreads sold to gay audiences and "other activities" that are not necessarily captured on film. We've had this same debate years ago over musclegallery.com and more recently over Steve Namat's video jerk sessions. I suspect HB doens't think those are gay either.

For what it's worth E-Kul has given some names... but is that of any use to you?

SO YOU ( ASSHOLE ) KNOW THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS GAY AND THE INTENT WAS FOR THE PHOTOS TO BE SOLD TO A GAY MAG? YEAH, YOU KNOW IT ALL, LIVING IN YOUR FAMILIES HOME, ON DISABILITY AND FIGHTING AN " ALL BB'S ARE GAY" WAR FROM YOUR CHILDHOOD BED ROOM.

thats ken sprague correct? Dakota. N the one in the right hand corner looks like Roger Collard. Is that him and did he do male on male or is he just posing in that vid.

N I always Thot that was Leroy Colbert in that pic at worlds. Is that Jim someone?

When the "Loadstar" tape came up, curiosity got the best of me and I read a scene break down - Drasin does a nude posing act. Callard does the same and some touching with the other guys. Birdsong and Sprague are involved in the heavy stuff.

That's what the review said, it might be actually more graphic or not.

SO YOU ( ASSHOLE ) KNOW THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS GAY AND THE INTENT WAS FOR THE PHOTOS TO BE SOLD TO A GAY MAG? YEAH, YOU KNOW IT ALL, LIVING IN YOUR FAMILIES HOME, ON DISABILITY AND FIGHTING AN " ALL BB'S ARE GAY" WAR FROM YOUR CHILDHOOD BED ROOM.

YOU HAVE BEEN OUTED.

THE BEEF

x2 pose nude from a photo isnt gay. there is a thin line between art and porn tho.

What possible purpose would this serve? If you don't want to believe it (as with Hurricane Beef) nothing I say is going to convince you. If you are inclined to believe it, you probably do not need any more convincing. Like E-Kul I don't see much difference between posing nude for a gay photographer for spreads sold to gay audiences and "other activities" that are not necessarily captured on film. We've had this same debate years ago over musclegallery.com and more recently over Steve Namat's video jerk sessions. I suspect HB doens't think those are gay either.

For what it's worth E-Kul has given some names... but is that of any use to you?

In a court you would get laughed out with this response.Im simply asking what evidence you have of it, is it potential witnesses?Photos?Video?Namat has a video, Prince has Photos of him with a boner, I can name a few figure girls who are talked about on various schmoe worshop sites where multiple posters tell of sessions with them.Simply going in to a rage to deflect isnt going to cut it, either dish what you have (is there anything) or stop the BS.

In a court you would get laughed out with this response.Im simply asking what evidence you have of it, is it potential witnesses?Photos?Video?Namat has a video, Prince has Photos of him with a boner, I can name a few figure girls who are talked about on various schmoe worshop sites where multiple posters tell of sessions with them.Simply going in to a rage to deflect isnt going to cut it, either dish what you have (is there anything) or stop the BS.

How amusing! Fortunately, we are not in court, and I don't need evidence because I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. That said, you appear to suffer from a form of epistemological solipsism; "if I don't know about it, it doesn't exist." Alas, a world does exist beyond your field of vision. Including a world where roided young muscle men with little money trade access to their bodies with usually older men in exchange for cash and other favors.

How amusing! Fortunately, we are not in court, and I don't need evidence because I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. That said, you appear to suffer from a form of epistemological solipsism; "if I don't know about it, it doesn't exist." Alas, a world does exist beyond your field of vision. Including a world where roided young muscle men with little money trade access to their bodies with usually older men in exchange for cash and other favors.

I have no problem believing it, I've just never seen a specific encounter talked about, any photo or video, just very loose innuendo from folks who have very little credibility, im just interested in what actual evidence is out there (no homo).

I have no problem believing it, I've just never seen a specific encounter talked about, any photo or video, just very loose innuendo from folks who have very little credibility, im just interested in what actual evidence is out there (no homo).

There is NO evidence and everyone is guilty by association according to Bay.

SO YOU ( ASSHOLE ) KNOW THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS GAY AND THE INTENT WAS FOR THE PHOTOS TO BE SOLD TO A GAY MAG? YEAH, YOU KNOW IT ALL, LIVING IN YOUR FAMILIES HOME, ON DISABILITY AND FIGHTING AN " ALL BB'S ARE GAY" WAR FROM YOUR CHILDHOOD BED ROOM.

YOU HAVE BEEN OUTED.

THE BEEF

Your a weirdo!, this is commonly known information, it has been in the public domain for over 30 years - the photographer was openly gay, and the magazine the photos were published in was a gay magazine. Are you angry because other people don't approve of your homosexual lifestyle.

Your a weirdo!, this is commonly known information, it has been in the public domain for over 30 years - the photographer was openly gay, and the magazine the photos were published in was a gay magazine. Are you angry because other people don't approve of your homosexual lifestyle.